Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

HYDRA: Massively Compositional Model for Cross-Project Defect Prediction

Xia, Xin, Lo, David, Pan, Sinno Jialin, Nagappan, Nachiappan, Wang, Xinyu·2016·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Abstract

Most software defect prediction approaches are trained and applied on data from the same project. However, often a new project does not have enough training data. Cross-project defect prediction, which uses data from other projects to predict defects in a particular project, provides a new perspective to defect prediction. In this work, we propose a HYbrid moDel Reconstruction Approach (HYDRA) for cross-project defect prediction, which includes two phases: genetic algorithm (GA) phase and ensemble learning (EL) phase. These two phases create a massive composition of classifiers. To examine the benefits of HYDRA, we perform experiments on 29 datasets from the PROMISE repository which contains a total of 11,196 instances (i.e., Java classes) labeled as defective or clean. We experiment with logistic regression as the underlying classification algorithm of HYDRA. We compare our approach with the most recently proposed cross-project defect prediction approaches: TCA+ by Nam et al., Peters filter by Peters et al., GP by Liu et al., MO by Canfora et al., and CODEP by Panichella et al. Our results show that HYDRA achieves an average F1-score of 0.544. On average, across the 29 datasets, these results correspond to an improvement in the F1-scores of 26.22 , 34.99, 47.43, 28.61, and 30.14 percent over TCA+, Peters filter, GP, MO, and CODEP, respectively. In addition, HYDRA on average can discover 33 percent of all bugs if developers inspect the top 20 percent lines of code, which improves the best baseline approach (TCA+) by 44.41 percent. We also find that HYDRA improves the F1-score of Zero-R which predict all the instances to be defective by 5.42 percent, but improves Zero-R by 58.65 percent when inspecting the top 20 percent lines of code. In practice, Zero-R can be hard to use since it simply predicts all of the instances to be defective, and thus developers have to inspect all of the instances to find the defective ones. Moreover, we notice the improvement of HYDRA over other baseline approaches in terms of F1-score and when inspecting the top 20 percent lines of code are substantial, and in most cases the improvements are significant and have large effect sizes across the 29 datasets.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tse.2016.2543218

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 61 references

Metadata

Authors
Xia, X., Lo, D., Pan, S. J., Nagappan, N., & Wang, X.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Published
2016-10-01
Volume
42
Issue
10
Pages
977-998
ISSN
  • 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-3520
OpenAlex
W2312398278
Cited by
293
References
61
FWCI
81.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: HYDRA: Massively Compositional Model for Cross-Project Defect Prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2016.2543218
The paper
Xia, X., Lo, D., Pan, S. J., Nagappan, N., & Wang, X. (2016). HYDRA: Massively Compositional Model for Cross-Project Defect Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2016.2543218

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.